UPC CoA 845/2024

At the UPC: Belkin Group (24 cases)·Philips Group (46 cases)

• 2025-07-22
  Application For CostsPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal of the UPC permitted the withdrawal of a cost-assessment application (R. 151 RoP) filed by Philips at the Court of Appeal, which had been submitted in error. The correct forum for cost assessment was the Munich Local Division. No cost decision was required in the context of this withdrawal.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Withdrawal of cost-assessment application under R. 265 RoP
  • Jurisdiction for cost assessment (R. 151 RoP)
  • Court of Appeal vs. Court of First Instance competence for costs
• 2025-05-30
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: Rectification order of the Court of Appeal correcting an obvious clerical error in the order of 30 May 2025 (Belkin v Philips, penalty payment proceedings). The phrase 'Local Division Düsseldorf' is replaced by 'Local Division Munich' throughout the operative part.

  Show the legal issues (1)

  • Rectification of manifest clerical error under R. 353 RoP
• 2025-05-30
  Appeal RoP220.2Public

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Panel 2) ruled on Belkin's appeal and Philips' cross-appeal against the Munich Local Division's order on penalty payments for non-compliance with an information disclosure obligation following the infringement judgment in UPC_CFI_390/2023 (Philips v Belkin, EP patent not specified in excerpt). The CoA modified the first-instance order: a penalty payment of EUR 42,000 was imposed on Belkin for failing to comply with the information disclosure order. The court established key principles on time periods for information disclosure under Art. 67(1) UPCA, the punitive nature of penalty payments even after belated compliance, burden of proof, and the permissibility of paper format for information. Costs were shared proportionally as both parties were partially unsuccessful.

  Show the legal issues (6)

  • Penalty payments for non-compliance with information disclosure order (Art. 67(1) UPCA, R. 354 RoP)
  • Time period requirement for information disclosure
  • Punitive nature of penalty payments despite belated compliance
  • Burden of proof for compliance with disclosure obligation
  • Paper vs. electronic format for information disclosure
  • Manufacturer price information under Art. 67(1)(b) UPCA